|
|
Convictions: Slate's blog on legal issues
Sunday, March 30, 2008 - Posts
-
Jack, my apologies for not understanding your earlier posts. Reading over your latest post , I now understand that your view is that each Justice should do his or her thing; as long as the decisions are drawn from shared legal norms, the system will work Read More...
-
I'm not quite sure how Orin Kerr got the impression that my account of living constitutionalism is designed to give advice to judges, since I point out in these two posts that that's really not the goal of the theory. In any case, he wants to know what Read More...
-
If I understand Jack's account of "Living Constitutionalism" correctly, the basic idea is that (a) Justices will naturally pull the Constitution in the direction of what they see as sound public policy, and that (b) this is a good thing, as we end up Read More...
-
If we're going to be admiring the Framers for their many diverse talents, as Adam White ably does below in his post on John Adams, then don't forget ol' Tommy Jefferson. Sure, he was a political philosopher, principle author of the Declaration of Independence, Read More...
-
Tonight, HBO offers Episode Four in the gripping seven-part mini-series, John Adams . No doubt, each viewer takes something different away from the series; here is my modest contribution. What I enjoyed in the early episodes was seeing such deep political, Read More...
-
Interesting as the debate over FISA has been, I think this report is important -- the first really serious empirical study of inclusionary zoning, the mechanism whereby localities try to use their zoning powers not to exclude low income housing but to Read More...
-
Jack defines living constitutionalism as follows (critique to follow):
Under this model of living constitutionalism, successive generations may not reject the Constitution's text and principles, but they may decide how best to honor, implement, and apply them through constitutional constructions and doctrinal implementations. ...
This model produces a system of judicial interpretation that is responsive to democratic politics in the long run but not directly controlled by it in the short run. It preserves constitutional law's relative autonomy from politics in the short run while making it responsive to constitutional politics in the long run. Read More...
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum What did you think of this article?
|
|
|